Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:
Not really, it's hardly rocket science, e.g. just look at all the reused 30k SoH ability names functioning as Black Legion stratagems, reused 30k WB abilities functioning as WB stratagems, etc, etc. GW have routinely turned to 30k since at least Vigilus Ablaze as a source of inspiration for their traitor legion rules. GW gonna GW, no doubt about it, but let's not pretend that they're incapable of haphazardly lifting themes/translating rules from their own publications. Even a broken clock is right twice a day

And yet, they refuse to lift A Talent For Murder from HH and adapt it to 40k Night Lords, instead insisting on sticking with morale mechanics, no matter how many times they've been shown to be ineffective in the past. Faith and Fury gave me hope, because out of the 6 WTs, 8 stratagems, and 6 relics, only 1 stratagem and 1 relic focused on morale shenanigans, with the rest focusing on other aspects of the Legion. But it seems whoever it is on the design team who is obsessed with making Night Lords the "Scary Marines" managed to push that mess through, again.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to be ceaselessly negative about their rumoured rules so far. The actual trait has two components; the morale/CA debuff and the bonus to advance and charge. While morale is a part of it, it's not all there is. And the actual doctrine bonus isn't necessarily morale dependent either:

Wanton Slaughter: When using a pistol/assault/melee vs below half strength unit or LD 6 and below = +1 to wound (Super doctrine)

This means against certain opponents you're going to get it by default, while against other tougher ones (e.g. Custodes) you can still activate it by weakening them before you pounce. Pretty much the only army it won't work against are Knights. That reads like a pretty reasonable translation of A Talent For Murder to me. I'd also point out that none of the other rumoured content for NL (1x trait, 2x strats, 1x relic) interact with morale at all, so the F&F theme may still hold true. It also goes without saying that there could be other parts of their lore translated in the form of relics/strats/traits etc; we don't have the full picture.

If you're simply going to hate any NL rules by default that involve any morale interaction at all then good for you, I'm not a fan of the mechanics either as I've been living with the old WB trait for nearly 5 years, but writing them off as a flanderised design failure is more than a little premature.

 Marshal Loss wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:
Not really, it's hardly rocket science, e.g. just look at all the reused 30k SoH ability names functioning as Black Legion stratagems, reused 30k WB abilities functioning as WB stratagems, etc, etc. GW have routinely turned to 30k since at least Vigilus Ablaze as a source of inspiration for their traitor legion rules. GW gonna GW, no doubt about it, but let's not pretend that they're incapable of haphazardly lifting themes/translating rules from their own publications. Even a broken clock is right twice a day

And yet, they refuse to lift A Talent For Murder from HH and adapt it to 40k Night Lords, instead insisting on sticking with morale mechanics, no matter how many times they've been shown to be ineffective in the past. Faith and Fury gave me hope, because out of the 6 WTs, 8 stratagems, and 6 relics, only 1 stratagem and 1 relic focused on morale shenanigans, with the rest focusing on other aspects of the Legion. But it seems whoever it is on the design team who is obsessed with making Night Lords the "Scary Marines" managed to push that mess through, again.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to be ceaselessly negative about their rumoured rules so far. The actual trait has two components; the morale/CA debuff and the bonus to advance and charge. While morale is a part of it, it's not all there is. And the actual doctrine bonus isn't necessarily morale dependent either:

Wanton Slaughter: When using a pistol/assault/melee vs below half strength unit or LD 6 and below = +1 to wound (Super doctrine)

This means against certain opponents you're going to get it by default, while against other tougher ones (e.g. Custodes) you can still activate it by weakening them before you pounce. Pretty much the only army it won't work against are Knights. That reads like a pretty reasonable translation of A Talent For Murder to me. I'd also point out that none of the other rumoured content for NL (1x trait, 2x strats, 1x relic) interact with morale at all, so the F&F theme may still hold true. It also goes without saying that there could be other parts of their lore translated in the form of relics/strats/traits etc; we don't have the full picture.

If you're simply going to hate any NL rules by default that involve any morale interaction at all then good for you, I'm not a fan of the mechanics either as I've been living with the old WB trait for nearly 5 years, but writing them off as a flanderised design failure is more than a little premature.

Yes, it has another component, as do all of the other Legion traits. But only Night Lords have a main component that is either debilitating or practically non-existant depending on the opponent. And the "doctrine bonus" only kicks in on turns 4 and 5, if it works like loyalist doctrines. So, possibly too little, too late. And as I've already said, I don't want my Legion to be dependent on CP and stratagems just to function against some opponents. And no, I don't like morale mechanics, because I don't like the current morale rules which just equal "more dead models".

And I never said "fanderised". That was someone else.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And the "doctrine bonus" only kicks in on turns 4 and 5, if it works like loyalist doctrines. So, possibly too little, too late.

Incorrect; the Assault Doctrine kicks in on turn 3 or 4 onwards, not turns 4 or 5. And as with the SM book there will presumably be various ways to put units into different doctrines at different points. The SM book has fallen by the wayside thanks to power creep but past performance by factions like White Scars shows that factions built around the assault doctrine are not necessarily weak.

I appreciate that rules which are monstrous against some opponents and anemic against others are far from ideal, but these kinds of interactions are hard to avoid. Certain units in every army are effective against some opponents and ineffective against others. While you're pointing to the morale part of their trait/doctrine as the "main" component, their trait & doctrine still offer tangible and powerful bonuses that you can build a force around. And, as above, we don't have the full picture yet. There could be an Atramentar stratagem etc floating around or w/e. Who knows.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And I never said "fanderised". That was someone else.

But you are repeatedly and prematurely writing them off as a design failure. Whatever makes you happy.

Fair points, and I guess I may be incorrect about when "Wanton Slaughter" kicks in. But right now, I'm thinking "whatever makes me happy" is going to hopefully be some nice custom traits.

It'd be cool for NL to fight first against chargers if they are in cover, like they lured the enemy into a trap. Also be cool to have stratagem to deal MWs to an enemy unit that charges cultists as a sort of 'booby trap' tactic, as well as dealing MWs to the cultists themselves of course.

Or a start-of-game stratagem to put out some markers that are worth a one-time CP bonus if the opponent captures them... except some portion of the markers are trapped and have a nasty effect instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ooo--or strats to forcibly put enemy units in reserve/force enemy units that are in reserve to deploy early. Obviously with PL limits but still.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Ooo--or strats to forcibly put enemy units in reserve..

Everybody loved it when Alaitoc did that in 3rd ed! Let's do that again! What could possibly go wrong?

 Marshal Loss wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And the "doctrine bonus" only kicks in on turns 4 and 5, if it works like loyalist doctrines. So, possibly too little, too late.

Incorrect; the Assault Doctrine kicks in on turn 3 or 4 onwards, not turns 4 or 5. And as with the SM book there will presumably be various ways to put units into different doctrines at different points. The SM book has fallen by the wayside thanks to power creep but past performance by factions like White Scars shows that factions built around the assault doctrine are not necessarily weak.

I appreciate that rules which are monstrous against some opponents and anemic against others are far from ideal, but these kinds of interactions are hard to avoid. Certain units in every army are effective against some opponents and ineffective against others. While you're pointing to the morale part of their trait/doctrine as the "main" component, their trait & doctrine still offer tangible and powerful bonuses that you can build a force around. And, as above, we don't have the full picture yet. There could be an Atramentar stratagem etc floating around or w/e. Who knows.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And I never said "fanderised". That was someone else.

But you are repeatedly and prematurely writing them off as a design failure. Whatever makes you happy.

I am a night lord player and am loving, and i mean loving these rules. Just an additionnal thought, yeah the moral part of the rules are situationnal, but people complaining about this havent noticed that all the legions have a situational trait...

BL
ignore CA

WB
5+++ vs MW

IW
ignore cover

AL
-1 to hit from 12'', 10W @ 18''

They all have a situational ability

 Geifer wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Ooo--or strats to forcibly put enemy units in reserve..

Everybody loved it when Alaitoc did that in 3rd ed! Let's do that again! What could possibly go wrong?

Reserves work the same way now as they did in 3rd?

posted an update:

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/371366-what-to-expect-from-9e-csm/page-41

I just wanna know if Harkaan can use his fething STUPID SPEAR IN MELEE or at least if his claw gets Master Crafted.

Of course he can't--that spear is for sticking into planets, not people!

 clockworkchris9 wrote:
posted an update:

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/371366-what-to-expect-from-9e-csm/page-41

Hmm. Missed the part where Possessed can have icons. I wonder if that'll be a new option in the kit. Some backpack decoration like we've seen for Chosen and Chaos Marines.

 clockworkchris9 wrote:
posted an update:

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/371366-what-to-expect-from-9e-csm/page-41

No offense, but this is some poster on a website I've never heard of before. How do we know this poster didn't make all of that up? Where is their credibility on display?

How verify?

 Togusa wrote:

 clockworkchris9 wrote:
posted an update:

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/371366-what-to-expect-from-9e-csm/page-41

No offense, but this is some poster on a website I've never heard of before. How do we know this poster didn't make all of that up? Where is their credibility on display?

How verify?

Welcome to the wonderful world of rumours, Togusa - the whole point is that we can't know whether this is correct or not until the book comes out.

And I've never seen a statement start with "No offense, but..." that wasn't intended to be offensive.

 clockworkchris9 wrote:

I am a night lord player and am loving, and i mean loving these rules. Just an additionnal thought, yeah the moral part of the rules are situationnal, but people complaining about this havent noticed that all the legions have a situational trait...

BL
ignore CA

WB
5+++ vs MW

IW
ignore cover

AL
-1 to hit from 12'', 10W @ 18''

They all have a situational ability

Combat Attrition is something that happens after combat, something CSM are geared towards. BL ignoring CA is a very good trait that will benefit the whole army multiple times in a game.

Most, if not all, armies in 40k have ways of dealing Mortal Wounds. It's not nearly as good as the BL trait but still very useful, especially against a Psyker heavy army such as Tsons or GK.

If you aren't using terrain and cover then you aren't playing the game properly. The ability to ignore cover is not situational when cover is something that will be in every single game.

-1 to Hit when the shooter is more than 12" away means for a good portion of the game, AL units will be hit by ranged attacks less.

A full half of the NL traits have little to no effect on Space Marines (plus their 11 subtypes), Grey Knights, Imperial Knights, Chaos Knights, Necrons, and Custodes. GW considers each of the Marine subtypes to be its own army so we have 17 armies that just flat out ignore the NL trait to a large degree. There are also loads of ways for other armies that might suffer more to reduce the effectiveness or even negate the effects of this part of the trait. The only other subfaction that I know of that has this sort of issue is Deathwatch and that's because they're specifically targeted at fighting Xenos.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Ooo--or strats to forcibly put enemy units in reserve..

Everybody loved it when Alaitoc did that in 3rd ed! Let's do that again! What could possibly go wrong?

Reserves work the same way now as they did in 3rd?

The game is different to a degree, but that's a little like asking if some armies getting free units or more points than the opposing army can work in 9th ed. Sure, that failed horribly in the previous edition, and the one before that, and the one before that, but hey, if at first you don't succeed...

Some rules shouldn't exist. That's one of them. Aside from being a pretty egregious example of a rule that allows you to tell your opponent that he's not allowed to use his toys, which is not and has never been conducive to letting both players enjoy the game and have fun, it's a rule that screws with the foundations of how the game tries to achieve balance (insert derisive comment about GW and balance as needed). I'm not even going to go back to 3rd ed. Let's just stick with the present rules. 40k is listhammer and combohammer these days. If you give a player the unmitigated ability to take an opponent's unit out of the equation, you don't just take out the individual value of that unit but disrupt other units that build on and synergize with it. So even in the best case scenario, where you would have the stratagem limited to a single use, you are introducing a power discrepancy between the two armies before the game has even started, for the paltry price of a handful of command points.

You'd best think of this kind of rule as a different kind of alpha strike and an amplifier that increases your alpha strike potential if you go first since there is less of the enemy army you need to cripple to decrease the immediate potency of its retaliation, and it decreases the enemy army's alpha strike potential if you go second so that you may perform a delayed alpha strike that may otherwise not be potent enough to be considered that. In a game that already has to deal with considerable lethality issues, your proposed rule would only double down on an existing problem.

It doesn't necessarily provide a fluffy experience either. For every instance of a convoy or reserves moving to the frontline that got ambushed and delayed you'll have instances where your Night Lords snuck out the night before to hit Necrons on their tomb world on the other side of the galaxy. That's a narrative that needs forging real hard. The game implementation of the terror tactics part of the Night Lords' identity has always had this huge problem attached to it that for the most part their opponents are too fanatical, too crazy or too alien to suffer any psychological effect and the game's psychology rules for the last quarter of a century have been failed leadership check = models run away or have heart attacks. In my opinion GW should just give up trying to write the Night Lords' terror tactics identity into their legion rules or, these days, most of their stratagems either. As long as the game's rules don't support psychology in any meaningful way they'd be better off with getting actual functional rules and keep their spooky side as flavor for fluff and models.

 Gert wrote:

 clockworkchris9 wrote:

I am a night lord player and am loving, and i mean loving these rules. Just an additionnal thought, yeah the moral part of the rules are situationnal, but people complaining about this havent noticed that all the legions have a situational trait...

BL
ignore CA

WB
5+++ vs MW

IW
ignore cover

AL
-1 to hit from 12'', 10W @ 18''

They all have a situational ability

Combat Attrition is something that happens after combat, something CSM are geared towards. BL ignoring CA is a very good trait that will benefit the whole army multiple times in a game.

Most, if not all, armies in 40k have ways of dealing Mortal Wounds. It's not nearly as good as the BL trait but still very useful, especially against a Psyker heavy army such as Tsons or GK.

If you aren't using terrain and cover then you aren't playing the game properly. The ability to ignore cover is not situational when cover is something that will be in every single game.

-1 to Hit when the shooter is more than 12" away means for a good portion of the game, AL units will be hit by ranged attacks less.

A full half of the NL traits have little to no effect on Space Marines (plus their 11 subtypes), Grey Knights, Imperial Knights, Chaos Knights, Necrons, and Custodes. GW considers each of the Marine subtypes to be its own army so we have 17 armies that just flat out ignore the NL trait to a large degree. There are also loads of ways for other armies that might suffer more to reduce the effectiveness or even negate the effects of this part of the trait. The only other subfaction that I know of that has this sort of issue is Deathwatch and that's because they're specifically targeted at fighting Xenos.

Again, Gert makes my point for me, and probably in a much nicer way than I would have.

Yes, those abilities are much less "situational" than the Night Lords trait. The Alpha Legion trait is basically the one that made them the "best Legion" for much of 8th edition. While the Night Lords trait will have little to no effect on many factions, not just units or certain situations in some games. That's why I'm hoping that either this is recognized in playtesting, and the trait gets reworked, or there's some nice custom traits that can be substituted in its place.

There needs to be much more of an internal balance of these traits or we'll all just end up using the Alpha Legion rules again.

Say what you will about the game being beer and pretzels and all that, but if we end up in a situation like we did before where the Night Lord Legion Trait was so bad by internal comparison that it should have been free, then it might as well not be in the book because it will be rarely used, if even, by Night Lords players who figure out how raw a deal they're getting.

I expect we should be getting better rules than the rumours are letting on, and GW have been getting better at doing their "second rounds" of attempts at rule sets (Like how Killteams 2nd edition is better, etc), but as a Night Lord fan we have be getting the bad end of the deal for a long time now regarding Legion traits (Alongside Word Bearers). There's a realistic fear that this will continue.

Edit: also as an addendum, killteam seriously needs actual new content and not the overpowered box sets we've been getting that can't be used against compendium teams. Everyone can tell that the box sets are OP once models are on the board and that we badly need a new Elites supplement, hopefully with Legion traits equivalents for all factions!

If this trait is causing fear in you, a fat guy, then it would seem to be effective...

 Dysartes wrote:
If this trait is causing fear in you, a fat guy, then it would seem to be effective...

I didn't think Games Workshop had started turning subfactions in meta-jokes!

Next we'll see a Harlequin trait that starts with "Paddy English man, Paddy Irish man and Paddy Scots man walk into a pub..."

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 clockworkchris9 wrote:

I am a night lord player and am loving, and i mean loving these rules. Just an additionnal thought, yeah the moral part of the rules are situationnal, but people complaining about this havent noticed that all the legions have a situational trait...

BL
ignore CA

WB
5+++ vs MW

IW
ignore cover

AL
-1 to hit from 12'', 10W @ 18''

They all have a situational ability

Combat Attrition is something that happens after combat, something CSM are geared towards. BL ignoring CA is a very good trait that will benefit the whole army multiple times in a game.

Most, if not all, armies in 40k have ways of dealing Mortal Wounds. It's not nearly as good as the BL trait but still very useful, especially against a Psyker heavy army such as Tsons or GK.

If you aren't using terrain and cover then you aren't playing the game properly. The ability to ignore cover is not situational when cover is something that will be in every single game.

-1 to Hit when the shooter is more than 12" away means for a good portion of the game, AL units will be hit by ranged attacks less.

A full half of the NL traits have little to no effect on Space Marines (plus their 11 subtypes), Grey Knights, Imperial Knights, Chaos Knights, Necrons, and Custodes. GW considers each of the Marine subtypes to be its own army so we have 17 armies that just flat out ignore the NL trait to a large degree. There are also loads of ways for other armies that might suffer more to reduce the effectiveness or even negate the effects of this part of the trait. The only other subfaction that I know of that has this sort of issue is Deathwatch and that's because they're specifically targeted at fighting Xenos.

Again, Gert makes my point for me, and probably in a much nicer way than I would have.

Yes, those abilities are much less "situational" than the Night Lords trait. The Alpha Legion trait is basically the one that made them the "best Legion" for much of 8th edition. While the Night Lords trait will have little to no effect on many factions, not just units or certain situations in some games. That's why I'm hoping that either this is recognized in playtesting, and the trait gets reworked, or there's some nice custom traits that can be substituted in its place.

Gert makes no point at all. They are all situational. Some armies have 0 to very little MW output, like astra militarum for example so the WB 5+++ serves no purpose against them.

If you enjoy BL but want to play mech or msu, you gain nothing from ignore CA.

AL have no ranged defense vs armies like GSC, custodes,drukhari, daemon, harlequins. They are either so fast or their effective range is close range shooting so the -1 is situational.

Ignore cover is totally situational because once your opponent knows you have it he he will change his gameplan unless he is playing jorgamandr or some faction that is alway in cover.

NL is in the same bucket as this and plays into the disruption warfare playstyle, sure it wont work on custodes, but is will work on standard marines, and it will force your opponent to blow 2cp on insane bravery which is 2 cp they will not use on some more valuable abilities.

Furthermore lets just run the numbers ssy you run into a 10 man tactical squad so ld8 becomes ld6, you manage to kill 5, at that point it is safe to say they will fail moral and lose an extra body. Thats an extra dead model for free.

Lastly also remember that these apply to everything apart from cultists. NL heldrakes and hellblades having a 9" morale bubble is a great added bonus along with baleflamers that get buffed by the super doctrine.

 clockworkchris9 wrote:
Gert makes no point at all. They are all situational.

Never said any of these weren't situational apart from the IW one.

Some armies have 0 to very little MW output, like astra militarum for example so the WB 5+++ serves no purpose against them.

And I didn't say it would be good against every single army. Personally, I think it's still a bad trait just not as bad as the NL one.

If you enjoy BL but want to play mech or msu, you gain nothing from ignore CA.

Yes playing an entirely vehicle-based list would mean the army wouldn't benefit from the trait. That's the player's fault for doing that, not the Trait being bad. That's like saying the Ultramarines +1 Ld tactic bonus is bad because you took a vehicle army. It's a really bad point to make.

AL have no ranged defense vs armies like GSC, custodes,drukhari, daemon, harlequins. They are either so fast or their effective range is close range shooting so the -1 is situational.

And what about the other 24 armies in the game? Should we just pretend they don't exist?

Ignore cover is totally situational because once your opponent knows you have it he he will change his gameplan unless he is playing jorgamandr or some faction that is alway in cover.

So you agree the trait is good because it forces your opponent to alter their battleplans and playstyle because of an outside influence. Thank you for supporting the point about Ignores Cover being useful in all games.

NL is in the same bucket as this and plays into the disruption warfare playstyle, sure it wont work on custodes, but is will work on standard marines, and it will force your opponent to blow 2cp on insane bravery which is 2 cp they will not use on some more valuable abilities.

Furthermore lets just run the numbers ssy you run into a 10 man tactical squad so ld8 becomes ld6, you manage to kill 5, at that point it is safe to say they will fail moral and lose an extra body. Thats an extra dead model for free.

So if you fight a Tactical Squad and if you kill 5 models, this trait is actually super brilliant guys. Not quite the home run you think it is.

Lastly also remember that these apply to everything apart from cultists. NL heldrakes and hellblades having a 9" morale bubble is a great added bonus along with baleflamers that get buffed by the super doctrine.

Yeah awesome, NL will have to entirely rely on Daemon and FW units to make the army worth playing. Very cool.

Honestly, I think you're being very defensive about all of this. Are we only allowed to talk about these rumours if we say they're amazing? I'm not even criticising the validity, I'm just calling the rules garbage.
I've mostly tried to stay out of this because I've said I don't believe these rumours are true previously and only jumped in because I had the time to explain why people found the NL trait dissapointing. If these are the rules going into the next Codex then my last year and a half of CSM buildup has been a waste of time.

You are allowed to discuss as i am allowed to refute. Step on your soap box to say what you have to say and you can expect some will agree and others will disagree.

My main issue is your knee jerk reaction and what-about-ism style of argumentation. Cool if you dont believe the rumours and find the rules are garbage, but you can stop beating a dead horse.

To me morale based traits seem like just bad design because they hit different opponents in a very unbalanced way. For some reasons, my Orks will be very affected, while my Necrons mostly don't care. Why should my Orks fare worse against NL than Necrons? It doesn't make any sense to me.

 clockworkchris9 wrote:
My main issue is your knee jerk reaction and what-about-ism style of argumentation. Cool if you dont believe the rumours and find the rules are garbage, but you can stop beating a dead horse.

I've made like 4 posts about the NL stuff in a thread with 30 pages. What dead horse am I beating when other posters were confused as to why people didn't like the NL trait. I don't think it's knee-jerking or "what-about-ism" to say that when around half the armies in the game can effectively ignore one of the parts of the NL trait, the trait is not good. The other traits are situational after the game has started, not before the army lists have even been written.

 clockworkchris9 wrote:
Gert makes no point at all. They are all situational. Some armies have 0 to very little MW output, like astra militarum for example so the WB 5+++ serves no purpose against them.

Right, no good against the Guard. Unless one their vehicles blows up near your units. Or one of your vehicles does. Or one of your psykers Perils. But other than those, yeah, not great against the Guard.

If you enjoy BL but want to play mech or msu, you gain nothing from ignore CA.

Ok, if you run a specific build that completely avoids playing to the Legion's strengths, it doesn't help you. 100% correct, no argument.

AL have no ranged defense vs armies like GSC, custodes,drukhari, daemon, harlequins. They are either so fast or their effective range is close range shooting so the -1 is situational.

Right, absolutely none of those factions will ever try to shoot an Alpha Legion unit from further away than 12". Ever. Ok, Daemons probably won't, so I'll give you that. The rest will though, unless you're, again, not playing to the Legion's strengths.

Ignore cover is totally situational because once your opponent knows you have it he he will change his gameplan unless he is playing jorgamandr or some faction that is alway in cover.

Right, they'll change their game plan. By, not using cover, I suppose? So, either way, they're not getting any bonuses from the cover. The trait is doing its job. Good.

NL is in the same bucket as this and plays into the disruption warfare playstyle, sure it wont work on custodes, but is will work on standard marines, and it will force your opponent to blow 2cp on insane bravery which is 2 cp they will not use on some more valuable abilities.

Furthermore lets just run the numbers ssy you run into a 10 man tactical squad so ld8 becomes ld6, you manage to kill 5, at that point it is safe to say they will fail moral and lose an extra body. Thats an extra dead model for free.

Lastly also remember that these apply to everything apart from cultists. NL heldrakes and hellblades having a 9" morale bubble is a great added bonus along with baleflamers that get buffed by the super doctrine.

10 man TAC squads? Do people still use those? Loyalist are pretty much all msu all of the time in my experience nowadays. Except big blocks of Deathwing terminators. Who auto-pass morale checks.

Look, I've already said if this makes it through playtesting unchanged, I'm probably going with custom traits. If you like hit, have fun. Good luck. I hope you have a lot of success with it. But your not going to convince me that it's a good trait. After 20 years playing Night Lords, I know what works, and what doesn't, and the morale stuff never does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Oguhmek wrote:
To me morale based traits seem like just bad design because they hit different opponents in a very unbalanced way. For some reasons, my Orks will be very affected, while my Necrons mostly don't care. Why should my Orks fare worse against NL than Necrons? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Right. That's my biggest problem with this trait. It's debilitating against some opponents, and almost inconsequential against others. Neither of those sounds fun to me.

There's "situational, but you can create the situation yourself through list-building or tactics" and there's "situational, and whether the situation comes up is entirely out of your hands", and those are two very different things. The first one makes things more fun and interesting. The second just makes things more frustrating and removes the player's sense of agency.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
10 man TAC squads? Do people still use those? Loyalist are pretty much all msu all of the time in my experience nowadays. Except big blocks of Deathwing terminators. Who auto-pass morale checks.

10 man unit of Deathwatch Veterans. The firepower and combat strength is ungodly fun.

 Gert wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
10 man TAC squads? Do people still use those? Loyalist are pretty much all msu all of the time in my experience nowadays. Except big blocks of Deathwing terminators. Who auto-pass morale checks.

10 man unit of Deathwatch Veterans. The firepower and combat strength is ungodly fun.

Really? Haven't played against Deathwatch since they got their new supplement. I'll have to watch for that when I get the chance.

I usually run a block of 10 in a Redeemer with a support HQ like a Librarian or Chaplain. Competitive? Not at all. Fun? Oh yes.